Save Baby Rico! Lindsey Nagel’s baby boy is still in state custody, being drugged and poisoned because of the inevitable result of a cross-reactive non-specific antibody marker test that has no standards. While mainstream media reports that a child has gone HIV negative after a questionable drug cocktail, the facts surrounding the claim lack genuine scientific validation. Liam Scheff and Terry Michael join RSB today for a very important discussion. See below and learn why every baby in America would test positive for HIV:

RTB: An important update on the OMSJ’s courtroom exposure of the fraud of HIV testing and a chance for you to participate in the discussion. (With thanks to Terry Michael for forwarding the news).

In a continuation of the paradigm-shifting Fort Bragg case, Reason.com (the libertarian publication) just posted a lengthy piece on the military trial in which an Army sergeant was acquitted under a military “HIV panic” law. HIV Revisionism in Fort Bragg Acquittal

The Reason Hit&Run blog quoted extensively from the piece by Terry Michael on the case. The Hit&Run piece also notes Clark Baker, Nancy Turner Banks and Rodney Richards, linking to OMSJ and to Nancy’s web site.

We suggest that those interested in open discussion of HIV testing and fraud now go to the Reason piece and leave comments. Please write under your own names, describe your credentials, and your experience and knowledge of the HIV testing fraud, in clear arguments.

“Because the case law surrounding HIV was mostly developed at the height of the HIV/AIDS scare 20 years ago, the government’s evidence is usually filled with gaps because it relies upon a variety of assumptions. But the military’s current procedures for supposedly diagnosing people as HIV positive is scientifically, medically, and legally inadequate.”

– Eldon Beck, Captain, USMC, 24 Oct 2011

Two weeks after the Marine Corps dismissed all charges against Corporal RL, his attorney posted this report on the Marine Corps’ Defense Services Organization’s website. These reports are seen by all Marine attorneys worldwide, and its contents will likely be reviewed by all other DoD and military branches.

Captain Beck left no question about OMSJ’s impact in the case:

“Our success in challenging the HIV issues in our case is largely due to Clark Baker (a former Marine, retired LAPD investigator, and licensed CA PI), Baron Coleman (a young civilian lawyer with expertise challenging HIV prosecutions), and other members of Clark’s team at the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ). Without them, we would not have been able to effectively challenge the HIV testing, chain of custody, and alleged diagnosis of our client… You should contact (OMSJ) immediately if you are detailed to an HIV-related case.”

Because of the incompetence that exists within HIV clinics, hospitals and the NIH and CDC, OMSJ is not concerned about sharing it’s investigative strategy with prosecutors or alleged “HIV experts” who are called to testify as prosecution witnesses. In fact, if prosecutors and their witnesses memorize OMSJ’s strategy, they would not file criminal HIV charges against anyone.

Capt. Beck concludes:

“(A)n HIV case is NOT a slam dunk for the government. Get the right HIV experts on your team and you will probably be able to kill the case before trial. If the government is reckless enough to go to trial, you will probably be able to get a strong win for your client.”

RTB:The OMSJ has gotten over thirty defendants liberated from their “HIV” indictments – by bringing the facts to court, and holding the “experts” to simple honesty and logic.

Step 1: Does anyone “have” HIV? Answer: “No, not based on HIV tests.”

The reality is this – there are no tests for HIV in existence, despite the massive propaganda peddled by the pharmawhores in media and medicine. There are …no tests that find a single, unique particle; these garbage tests react with every disease known to human kind.

In this case, Jason Young would have spent 70 years – the rest of his life – in prison, for being falsely accused of being “HIV positive.” Instead, he’ll walk out of prison in a couple of months. [Link]

HIV testing is an absolute fraud, and an absolute lie. If you know anyone who has been falsely condemned with one of these abysmal tests, please have them contact the OMSJ.

BLT – A Washington man incorrectly diagnosed with HIV can sue his health clinic for infliction of emotional distress, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) today, expanding the ground for similar damages claims for the first time since 1990.

Although previous case law limited claims for emotional damages to cases in which a person was in physical danger and feared for his safety, the en banc court found that “physical endangerment” is too limiting a standard.

“Because care for the body and the emotions are so interlinked, and patients often are dependent on their physicians’ exercise of due care, they therefore are susceptible to suffer emotionally as well as physically as a result of their physicians’ negligence,” the judges wrote, noting the ruling is not limited to cases involving health care providers.

The judges, who ruled unanimously, expanded on the “zone of physical danger” requirement set up in the court’s 1990 Williams v. Baker decision.

Walker-Whitman Health Clinic

The court’s new “supplemental rule” establishes a three-part test: First, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant’s obligation to the plaintiff is tied to the plaintiff’s emotional well-being; second, that there is an “especially likely” risk that negligence could cause “serious emotional distress;” and third, that negligent actions did cause that distress.

In the underlying case, Terry Hedgepeth went for an HIV test in late 2000 at the Whitman-Walker Clinic, now called Whitman-Walker Health, because he had just learned his girlfriend was HIV-positive. A blood test showed Hedgepeth was not HIV-positive but, due to a “human error,” the lab results form was filled out to mistakenly list him as positive.

Hedgepeth believed he was HIV-positive for the next five years. He suffered from severe depression and suicidal thoughts, and engaged in risky behavior, including sexual intercourse with a woman who was HIV-positive, because he thought “there was no reason for [him] to live.”

In June 2005, a series of new tests revealed he was not HIV-positive. He filed suit against the nonprofit and one of its doctors in District of Columbia Superior Court in August 2005.

The trial judge granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that Hedgepeth had failed to pass the “zone of physical danger” test. The appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision in October 2009. Hedgepeth successfully requested an en banc rehearing, which was held last June.

The ruling today overturns the previous decisions and remands the case back to Superior Court.

Hedgepeth’s lawyer, Washington solo practitioner Jonathan Dailey, did not immediately return a request for comment. The Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief on Hedgepeth’s behalf; a representative there could not immediately be reached.

Alfred Belcuore, also a Washington solo practitioner, argued for Whitman-Walker Health. Belcuore and a spokesman for the nonprofit did not immediately return a request for comment. Children’s National Medical Center filed an amicus brief, but a representative there could not immediately be reached.

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what’s explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we’re all at risk. We’re encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, “knowing is beautiful.” We also know that AIDS drugs are all that’s stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently – quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they’ll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they’re arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.